(18-07-2015 01:55 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote: No, actually, I do need to comment, because I keep seeing this same bullshit from Creationists, and it pisses me off.

You keep saying "a problem for" evolution.

It's not a problem when we have an area to inquire into, which is not-yet fully solved, and for which we have several competing ideas that seem plausible but have not yet been demonstrated as the one that actually happened, in a testable, reproducible way.

It's not a problem at all. It's called SCIENCE. That's quite literally how it works. So when you say "it's a problem for", it not only tells us that you're a dishonest (or, admittedly, perhaps just confused) person, and don't know what you're talking about.

Edit to add: When you say "It's a problem for", it'd be like someone standing at a murder scene, knee-deep in evidence, all pointing to the same conclusion. There's DNA evidence, blood spatter on the suspect belonging to the victim, gunshot residue on the hands, and we've documented years of harassing emails and phonecalls from the suspect to the victim, who had a restraining order against him. And then, because the police find six different shell casings in the alleyway but have not yet found the gun or matched which of the six casings is the one that fired the bullet, you're the asshole who says "Oh, that's a problem."

We know she died of a gunshot wound. We know it was the dude who got spattered with her blood. We know the chain of events that led up to the murder. But because no one else saw it and we haven't yet matched the instrument of the murder to the cause (though we know it must be one of those casings), you think it's an unsolved murder? Only if you're delusional. Or a scummy TV defense lawyer.

What an insightful reply.

You really don't understand how science works, do you.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(16-07-2015 08:41 PM)Grave Wrote: The Bible says God took the dust of the earth and formed man and breathed the breath of life into him. According to the Bible, man was created by God for God. God made man to serve him, but because he loved man so much he gave us free will so that we aren't forced to obey him or serve him. Man messes up in the Bible so God decides to destroy man because he is a jealous God. God can't coexist with sin so when sin entered into the world God had to start judging mankind. Gods way of saving mankind was by sending Jesus to die on the cross to bear the sins of the world so that we may be forgiven for our sins and coexist with God in heaven. Your sins can be forgiven by believing in Jesus Christ and that he died for your sin and that we can leave our sin on the cross with him. If we do not ask for that forgiveness and strive to no longer sin (although it is impossible to be without sin because sin is in mankind) then we will have to face the punishment of hell because we won't be allowed to coexist with that sin in heaven with God. The whole reason for the virgin birth of Jesus was so the sin nature wouldn't be passed down from man since Jesus was actually God in the form of man. Jesus was the evidence and physical proof of God. He was Gods way of showing his existence. Jesus never did any wrong and never sinned. The reason God isn't on earth showing us his existence is because he cannot coexist with man because of sin. Jesus was 100% human while also 100% God. He was tempted and tried by Satan but he still didn't sin because he was God. He literally became sin for us so that our future generations could be saved. I'm just letting you all know what Christians believe God and Jesus and man is so that you won't have to ask for definitions in the future. Theist don't do a good job of explaining this before attacking the Atheist.

It's a real shame that that's all bullshit eh?

Here is a fun game to play: prove a single thing you just said.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.

(16-07-2015 08:41 PM)Grave Wrote: The Bible says God took the dust of the earth and formed man and breathed the breath of life into him. According to the Bible, man was created by God for God. God made man to serve him, but because he loved man so much he gave us free will so that we aren't forced to obey him or serve him. Man messes up in the Bible so God decides to destroy man because he is a jealous God. God can't coexist with sin so when sin entered into the world God had to start judging mankind. Gods way of saving mankind was by sending Jesus to die on the cross to bear the sins of the world so that we may be forgiven for our sins and coexist with God in heaven. Your sins can be forgiven by believing in Jesus Christ and that he died for your sin and that we can leave our sin on the cross with him. If we do not ask for that forgiveness and strive to no longer sin (although it is impossible to be without sin because sin is in mankind) then we will have to face the punishment of hell because we won't be allowed to coexist with that sin in heaven with God. The whole reason for the virgin birth of Jesus was so the sin nature wouldn't be passed down from man since Jesus was actually God in the form of man. Jesus was the evidence and physical proof of God. He was Gods way of showing his existence. Jesus never did any wrong and never sinned. The reason God isn't on earth showing us his existence is because he cannot coexist with man because of sin. Jesus was 100% human while also 100% God. He was tempted and tried by Satan but he still didn't sin because he was God. He literally became sin for us so that our future generations could be saved. I'm just letting you all know what Christians believe God and Jesus and man is so that you won't have to ask for definitions in the future. Theist don't do a good job of explaining this before attacking the Atheist.

It's a real shame that that's all bullshit eh?

Here is a fun game to play: prove a single thing you just said.

Lovely.
Now all ya gotta do is demonstrate that any of the texts in the Bible have any authority ... at all.
Spouting your childish simplistic 3rd Grade level of nonsense does nothing, but embarrass yourself.
With that crap, you couldn't even get into a 3rd rate Bible College.

Insufferable know-it-all. God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.

Actually, if I recall correctly, Behe was debated (properly, within scientific venues) by other scientists, and after a team of graduate students ran the exact experiment he said couldn't happen (the bacterial flagellum "mousetrap" he liked to use as an example) could indeed happen stepwise by adaptations of other genes, he withdrew his original claims in that now-infamous book Darwin's Black Box, or some title like that. And all this was like 15-20 years ago, because I remember it in or just after school.

Edit to Add: While looking around for the latest on Behe, I found this interesting journal article about another step toward reproducing on a lab table that which our erstwhile Creationist demands:

Okay, after doing some research, it appears Behe recanted his first recantation (which was basically "I'll come back when I have some proof" after being smacked down the first time) in a 2007 book called The Edge of Evolution, which posited that there's a limit to how much diversity is capable of being generated by random mutation, the "edge" being somewhere between Genus and Orders (meaning the classifications "Families" are as far as he thinks mutation can mold a species without Divine Intervention... somehow, though he apparently doesn't specify in any way in his book, meaning it drew great criticism). His ideas were literally put on trial in the Kitzmiller case, and he was forced to recant on the stand.

Quoting:In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts to an attempt to mandate the teaching of intelligent design on First Amendment grounds, Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense and asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Some of the most crucial exchanges in the trial occurred during Behe's cross-examination, where his testimony would prove devastating to the defense. Behe was forced to concede that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred" and that his definition of 'theory' as applied to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would also qualify. Earlier during his direct testimony, Behe had argued that a computer simulation of evolution he performed with Snoke shows that evolution is not likely to produce certain complex biochemical systems. Under cross examination however, Behe was forced to agree that "the number of prokaryotes in 1 ton of soil are 7 orders of magnitude higher than the population (it would take) to produce the disulfide bond" and that "it's entirely possible that something that couldn't be produced in the lab in two years... could be produced over three and half billion years."

(Bold emphasis my own, as always.)

Edit to add what the Judge said in his Opinion, which I love:

"ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe's argument that 'irreducibly complex' systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson

I find it hilarious, because EVEN IF all the science was wrong you STILL have no position. You are arguing for something that is IMPOSSIBLE. You have no alternative, no mechanism. The contention is that you don't think that the proposed mechanism is viable so you propose an impossible one.

(18-07-2015 04:26 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote: Okay, after doing some research, it appears Behe recanted his first recantation (which was basically "I'll come back when I have some proof" after being smacked down the first time) in a 2007 book called The Edge of Evolution, which posited that there's a limit to how much diversity is capable of being generated by random mutation, the "edge" being somewhere between Genus and Orders (meaning the classifications "Families" are as far as he thinks mutation can mold a species without Divine Intervention... somehow, though he apparently doesn't specify in any way in his book, meaning it drew great criticism). His ideas were literally put on trial in the Kitzmiller case, and he was forced to recant on the stand.

Quoting:In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts to an attempt to mandate the teaching of intelligent design on First Amendment grounds, Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense and asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Some of the most crucial exchanges in the trial occurred during Behe's cross-examination, where his testimony would prove devastating to the defense. Behe was forced to concede that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred" and that his definition of 'theory' as applied to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would also qualify. Earlier during his direct testimony, Behe had argued that a computer simulation of evolution he performed with Snoke shows that evolution is not likely to produce certain complex biochemical systems. Under cross examination however, Behe was forced to agree that "the number of prokaryotes in 1 ton of soil are 7 orders of magnitude higher than the population (it would take) to produce the disulfide bond" and that "it's entirely possible that something that couldn't be produced in the lab in two years... could be produced over three and half billion years."

(Bold emphasis my own, as always.)

Edit to add what the Judge said in his Opinion, which I love:

"ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe's argument that 'irreducibly complex' systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."

In the context of my book it is easy to realize that I meant there has been little work on the details of the evolution of irreducibly complex biochemical systems by Darwinian means. I had clearly noted that of course a large amount of work in many books and journals was done under the general topic of "molecular evolution," but that, overwhelmingly, it was either limited to comparing sequences (which, again, does not concern the mechanism of evolution) or did not propose sufficiently detailed routes to justify a Darwinian conclusion. Comparing sequences is interesting but cannot explain how molecular machines arose. Mechanisms (such as gene duplication, domain shuffling, and concerted evolution of multigene families) are thought to be involved in evolution at the molecular level, are however not justified in Darwinian terms. The processes like gene duplication, etc., although very significant, are not by themselves sufficient to understand how any complex biochemical system, may have arisen by Darwinian means.

(18-07-2015 04:01 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote: Actually, if I recall correctly, Behe was debated (properly, within scientific venues) by other scientists, and after a team of graduate students ran the exact experiment he said couldn't happen (the bacterial flagellum "mousetrap" he liked to use as an example) could indeed happen stepwise by adaptations of other genes, he withdrew his original claims in that now-infamous book Darwin's Black Box, or some title like that. And all this was like 15-20 years ago, because I remember it in or just after school.

Edit to Add: While looking around for the latest on Behe, I found this interesting journal article about another step toward reproducing on a lab table that which our erstwhile Creationist demands:

Individual bases : take away the sugar in the DNA backbone = no function
Take away the phosphate in the backbone = no function
Take away the nucleic acid bases = no function
Evolution is not a driving force at this stage, since replication of the cell depends on DNA.
So the individual DNA molecules are irreducible complex
DNA in general ( the double helix )
Unless the two types, purines, and pyrimidines are present, and so the individual four bases = no function, and no hability of information storage
The the enzymes and proteins for assembly and synthesis of the DNA structure must also be present, otherwise, no DNA double helix......